Join 3,514 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Stanford Prison Experiment, The Video
September 14, 2006 3:34 PM   Subscribe

Studying obedience and conformity: The Stanford Prison Experiment has been discussed many times before (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and has been made into a number of movies. Now you can watch the incredible review film made by the experimenter, with extensive documentary footage, post-experiment interviews and commentary: The Stanford Prison Experiment. [google video, 50 mins]
posted by MetaMonkey (27 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite

 
[Snarkers note: I posted this previously, but it was erroneously deleted as a double. I've confirmed it is OK to repost with a more descriptive description. Unfortunately the Milgram Experiment has been removed from Google Video since that last post]
posted by MetaMonkey at 3:35 PM on September 14, 2006


Unfortunately the Milgram Experiment has been removed from Google Video since that last post

That really sucks. Good post though.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 3:37 PM on September 14, 2006


This has always been one of the most fascinating experiments I've ever been exposed to. Thank you for the links.
posted by Bageena at 3:45 PM on September 14, 2006


But the Standford Prison Experiment is still available on google and is interesting if you have 50 mins...
posted by Big Mike at 3:48 PM on September 14, 2006


SeizeTheDay, I'll be keeping an eye out for it, should it reappear. Along with this film, it is one of the most remarkable documentaries I have ever seen.

Big Mike, check the post again, you missed a bit ;)
posted by MetaMonkey at 3:51 PM on September 14, 2006


Junk science.
posted by Krrrlson at 4:42 PM on September 14, 2006


Junk science.

Just like that global warming stuff!
posted by delmoi at 5:28 PM on September 14, 2006


I haven't read as much about the techniques of global warming research as I have about Zimbardo's experiment, but if they are on par with Zimbardo's, then yes, they too are junk science.
posted by Krrrlson at 5:35 PM on September 14, 2006


Some previous AskMe discussion here.
posted by weston at 6:02 PM on September 14, 2006


What wonderful logic you use, Krrlson!
posted by odinsdream at 6:38 PM on September 14, 2006


but if they are on par with Zimbardo's, then yes, they too are junk science.

Why are you saying this? I don't mean, "why do you think what you're saying is true." I mean "Why are you saying it"? What do you hope to accomplish? Do you think just posting one comment without any evidence is going to change anyone's mind?

Anyway, I think you don't know what you're talking about.
posted by delmoi at 6:38 PM on September 14, 2006


Why are you arguing with me?
posted by Krrrlson at 6:55 PM on September 14, 2006


Obviously Krrrlson is performing his own experiment, trying to see how much authority can be asserted through confidence, without displaying any knowledge or insight.

Anyway, thanks for reposting this. It was so sad to see these videos hidden after the original deletion.
posted by Llama-Lime at 7:34 PM on September 14, 2006


Why are you arguing with me?

I'm not arguing, I'm honestly curious why you're doing this.
posted by delmoi at 9:19 PM on September 14, 2006


I've expressed my opinion on the Zimbardo experiment. Now what were *you* trying to accomplish with a flawed and irrelevant comparison to global warming research?
posted by Krrrlson at 10:02 PM on September 14, 2006


...without displaying any knowledge or insight.

Unlike, say, yourself?
posted by Krrrlson at 10:03 PM on September 14, 2006


And unlike yourself, I'm making no scientific claims.

When dealing with science, it's put up or shut up time. When asked to justify your position, you've responded, but not with any justification. This places you squarely in the crank category. I, and I expect everyone else here, are very open to criticisms of the study. Can you provide any?
posted by Llama-Lime at 10:52 PM on September 14, 2006


And unlike yourself, I'm making no scientific claims.

When dealing with science, it's put up or shut up. When asked to justify your position, you've responded, but not with any justification. This places you squarely in the crank category. I, and I expect everyone else here, are very open to criticisms of the study. Can you provide any?
posted by Llama-Lime at 11:10 PM on September 14, 2006


What I fail to understand is that, after Zimbardo admits toward the end of the video that the experiment was unethical, how he continues to profit from the notoriety he received as a result. (Good thing that you all get to see the video while it lasts on Google - he's charging $110 for a VHS copy on his website, checks payable to Philip G. Zimbardo.)
posted by Saucy Intruder at 1:01 AM on September 15, 2006


I, and I expect everyone else here, are very open to criticisms of the study. Can you provide any?

There are some linked in the AskMe discussion I linked to above.

I think the experiment is interesting and a potentially useful reflection on human nature, but as I was when posting that question, I remain skeptical about some of the conclusions, and sympathetic to the idea that it wasn't particularly science.
posted by weston at 1:48 AM on September 15, 2006


What I fail to understand is that, after Zimbardo admits toward the end of the video that the experiment was unethical, how he continues to profit from the notoriety he received as a result.
posted by Saucy Intruder


Lots of things are unethical yet people profit from them. There's a difference between "unethical" and "illegal." Not everything that unethical is illegal, just as not everything that is illegal is unethical.
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:26 AM on September 15, 2006


Right, but Zimbardo is still a psychologist, and still subject to the bounds of professional ethics. Profiting from an unethical act is likewise unethical, no?
posted by Saucy Intruder at 10:22 AM on September 15, 2006



Qualitative research in social work
“Analytic induction is a major logic of qualitative research. The rule is: take one case, and develop a working hypothesis to explain it. After that, you take another case, and examine whether the hypothesis can explain the new case. If it fails, you should revise the hypothesis to explain both of the cases. Then, take the third, and repeat the same process of examining and revising the hypothesis. When you do not need to revise the hypothesis further, and you expect that the hypothesis will fit any new cases you might take, you will have refined the hypothesis enough. As you may have noticed, your choice of cases to be examined has an important bearing on the trustworthiness of analytic induction and is related to the sampling procedures of qualitative research mentioned below. This approach has been developed most fully by Strauss and Corbin (1998). Not all qualitative research follows this approach, but the inductive approach to design, fieldwork and analysis is one of the most influential characteristics of qualitative inquiry.”

Zimbardo couldn’t follow up.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:28 AM on September 15, 2006


Metamonkey,
Thanks very much indeed. What a completely gripping post.
(Had the time to watch it all just now).

There certainly isn't much "science" in the soft sciences - but calling it junk science seems to be missing everything of potential value entirely.

Far better too a coolly "unethical" instructor like Zimbardo than a gasping ninny like Ron Jones (the high school teacher who contrived the somewhat ad hoc groupthink experiment known as the "Third Wave" - discussed in links).

At least Zimbardo left a valid record of what he did.

I'm not sure - in this instance alone - I can get worked up by someone continuing to profit from something he did without originally intending to blunder into huge ethical problems.

(And, thank god people can still straight out call themselves "unethical" rather than the mimsy guilty of a "lapse in judgement/ inappropriate decisions").
posted by Jody Tresidder at 12:11 PM on September 15, 2006


If you ask me, this mania for making all experiments 'ethical' is what has stopped psychology from developing into a much more interesting field. All the classic experiments -- the ones that are actually interesting to hear about -- were done before they brought in all these silly rules about not being able to lie to people and all the rest of it.
posted by reklaw at 12:37 PM on September 15, 2006


When asked to justify your position, you've responded, but not with any justification. This places you squarely in the crank category.

Please point out where you, or anyone else, asked me to justify my position until you wrote the above words. In fact, delmoi specifically said he didn't care why I think what I said is true. This places you squarely in the loudmouth liar category.

I, and I expect everyone else here, are very open to criticisms of the study. Can you provide any?

It is not reproducible, the investigator participated in the study, there were no controlled variables, the sample size was one, and the experiment was, as many agree, unethical. Junk science.
posted by Krrrlson at 5:26 PM on September 15, 2006


And, on a more personal note, I resent that Milgram lost his shot at tenure after a more ethical, better organized experiment, while Zimbardo profited immensely from his amateurish dabbling.
posted by Krrrlson at 5:29 PM on September 15, 2006


« Older It's better that n guilty men go free than one inn...  |  Choose a (public domain) book ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments